Intellectual Exercise of the Day/Week/Month.

This has to do with two girls who happen to be conjoined twins.

Firstly, read this.

Then watch this.

At first, it seems a little weird, then it seems sorta cool. Each girl controls one arm and one leg, so they've got to be highly coordinated. The Wikipedia article mentions they play the piano (not so odd, as I've played piano duets; I'd think it'd actually be easier, because playing only one hand it much, much easier than playing two), and can type on a computer at "normal" speed (at first seems amazing, but then when you think of it in terms of using a keyboard, like a piano, it's all a matter of coordination and timing with your partner).

But close to the end of the article (and video) is this: "They expect to date, get married and have children."

Ummmmmmm....

Setting aside the obvious issue of that being just downright weird for the guy, this raises some very interesting theological, biological, ethical, and legal issues.

Firstly, who is marrying whom? Both the laws of nature and of the state say a marriage is between one man and one woman, and that polygamy is a sin/against the law. So they couldn't both marry the same guy. So either only one of the girls gets married, and the other remains single, or they each marry a different guy. That raises even more questions. For instance, if each one has a different spouse, how do you not cheat on your spouse? Also, if they get pregnant, who is the mother? Who's name goes on the birth certificate? Inquiring minds want to know.

Theologically speaking, marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and as a sacrament places an indelible mark on the soul. There being two distinct and unique consciouses means there are two souls, so if a marriage did take place, it would be between only one of the twins and one man. Assuming only one gets married, what are the moral implications for the unmarried one engaging in intercourse with her sister's spouse? Assuming they each marry a different man, what are the moral implications for adultery, and for one twin cheating on one's own spouse with her sister's spouse? Or for the man to sleep with his sister-in-law? Would they have to "take turns"?

Obviously, both marrying one man is immoral, but I think a good moral theologian might be able to argue that each marrying a different man could be moral on the grounds of double effect (because a good moral theologian can justify anything). Concerning the issues of adultery, this is clearly a situation where one action has two effects, one good and one bad, so in order to be moral, these criteria have to be met:

-The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
In this case, yes:
"'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.' Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: 'The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.'" (CCC 2362)

-The intention is for the good effect and not the bad.
We can assume that the spouses intend to fulfill their marriage vows, and not be disloyal to each other.

-The good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect.
"Proportionality". This is probably where the greatest debate could come. Does the conjugal union between spouses outweigh the unchaste union between two unmarried individuals? This is very difficult to say for certain, because you can't quantify morality. However, my understanding of this point is that it applies to things that are of two completely different moral levels, e.g. you can't unintentionally cause a global thermonuclear war in the process of saving a puppy from a burning building. The chaste union between spouses seems to me to be of the same moral plane as an unchaste union, so it is not outweighed by the bad effect. So I'd say this qualification is met, but debatably so.

-The good effect does not go through the bad effect.
The way this was taught to me in Christian Moral Principles was that the good effect could not be the result of the bad effect. They either had to occur independently of each other, or the bad effect was a result of the good effect. In this case, the chaste union is clearly not the product of the unchaste one, but they are both effects of the same action. So this condition seems to be met.

So, by that reasoning, it seems that it could be moral.

But still. That's just wrong.